And if you would ask me to define "marriage", I would define it as "union between two people who love each other". And if you had asked me at the age of eight, I would have given you the exact same definition.
.

Because a union between two people of the same sex is not the same as a union between a man and a woman. No matter what other issues are drawn into the discussion, that fundamental difference, and all the concomitant differences, remains. One can decide to call an apple an orange, but noone can make the apple into an orange--because they are simply different. The apple and the orange share characteristics--tartness, edibility, skins, etc.--but no one would mistake one for the other.

When the government attempts to restrict the rights of individuals, they must have a compelling reason. What compelling reason does the US Government have for denying homosexuals the right to marry? IMO, just saying one union is male/female and another male/male or female/female does not rise to the level of compelling. Language changes. Word usage evolves. 200 years ago, the term "gay" had a very different meaning than today. Why does changing the definition of "marriage" create such vehement responses? For those that want to delineate, there is always the "heterosexual marriage" vs. the "homosexual marriage."

200 years ago, the legal definition of a person qualified to vote would have included white men of property, over the age of 21. That definition has been expanded over time. Now qualified voters include women, all races and the age has been lowered to 18. Why did we not have a different terminology for female voters? They are fundamentally different from male voters? Legalizing gay marriage would just be expanding the definition of marriage.

Other than lacking the ability to produce their own children without laboratory assistance, how is a homosexual marriage fundamentally different from a heterosexual one? We allow women who have gone through menopause to marry. We allow infertile men to marry. The "fundamental difference" issue is just an excuse to deny homosexuals the full protection of the law. Take religion and tradition out of the mix and look at the issue with an eye toward equality.

Not all Americans have narrow views of marriage or this thread would be a lot shorter. There was also an earlier thread on this board when Proposition 8 was on the ballot that went into a lot more detail, but I don't remember the starting post of that thread.
As a reader of F&SF for decades and paranormal romances for several years, I've read stories with a wide range of concepts of marriage with no problem.

And I say it's alright to hold on to your views, as long as you're not denying someone else equality. What kind of people are we personally if we abandon our beliefs at the toss of a coin?

Equality is not being denied to anyone here according to these posts. Some of us are just trying to express our thoughts about the fact that we think marriage is between a man and a woman, without saying that other people cannot have similar benefits, in a different kind of union. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you can have your thoughts, why can't we have ours? Again, we are not denigrating nor are we denying anyone rights that belong to them.

As I said before, maybe our minds may be changed down the road, but maybe not. If it becomes the law of the land, then it'll be supported. But I still can feel that I don't like it. There are many laws now that are legal that don't necessarily resonate with me. Other laws that I do like may not gel with others. That's okay. We all deal with it when it's declared law. And this issue too will be resolved one way or another, in a humane and fair way, but not everyone will like it. It's that way most of the time--abortion, drinking prohibition enacted then repealed, gun ownership, upcoming immigration policy, and on and on. But we are a democracy and we know how it works. We respect the law, but still may not like it.

As I said before, maybe our minds may be changed down the road, but maybe not. If it becomes the law of the land, then it'll be supported. But I still can feel that I don't like it. There are many laws now that are legal that don't necessarily resonate with me. Other laws that I do like may not gel with others. That's okay. We all deal with it when it's declared law. And this issue too will be resolved one way or another, in a humane and fair way, but not everyone will like it. It's that way most of the time--abortion, drinking prohibition enacted then repealed, gun ownership, upcoming immigration policy, and on and on. But we are a democracy and we know how it works. We respect the law, but still may not like it.

I actually agree with you Tee <g>. You have the right to believe how you believe and you may be wired to believe the way you do. A while back I read some article about a scientific study done on peoples' political/social persuasions. The study made a strong case for a genetic predisposition toward conservatism or liberalism. Those who were hard-wired to resist change tended to fall into the conservative camp and those open to change in the liberal one. As a liberal, it is my duty to try and persuade those who dislike change that the change will not be harmful <g>. Your view of the subject seems to be that change should be gradual so that people have the time to absorb and accept. There is a great deal of logic in that stance. My view would be that homosexuals have been out of the closet for quite some time. Being homosexual began to be decriminalized 40 years ago. "Gay rights" were added to the Democratic platform 30 years ago. It has been 20 years since homosexuals first tried to have their marriages legalized. It is time for the logical next step: that we remove the final barriers for homosexual couples to have the same legal protection that we heterosexuals have.

maryskl, I really have enjoyed reading all the posts in this thread. As always, our posters are so diverse, not only with books, but also with their views. I especially love how they are able to express those thoughts so well without "losing" it. What a delight.

However, I have particularly enjoyed what you have said in yours with a somewhat different viewpoint than mine and they truly did make me stop and think (and still thinking). I like that. I'm not adverse to change; but I think you nailed it on the head when you said I prefer the thought process prior to that change, especially if it's a serious and significant one.

You express yourself well and what's more you get the other sides. I hope I can say that also for myself, because I believe I really do understand the concerns of others, in spite of my own personal feelings.

Governments restrict the rights of individuals all the time. In the case of marriage, for example, governments state that a person must be of a certain age to marry. Individuals of less than 18 years are forbidden to drink alcohol. Drivers are forbidden to exceed the speed limit. Few governments in the U.S., for example, would allow a 12 year old to marry, despite that 12 year old being an individual with rights. Yes, words change meaning--to our loss, IMO. I deem it unfortunate that it's no longer possible to speak of the "gay Parisienne" without additional explanation. Think the same thing will happen with the word "married"? Will a person have to explain further what he means when he uses the word?

I'm all for protecting the rights of the minority, but I'm not certain that a minority has the right to change what the majority thinks is right.

Governments restrict the rights of individuals all the time. In the case of marriage, for example, governments state that a person must be of a certain age to marry. Individuals of less than 18 years are forbidden to drink alcohol. Drivers are forbidden to exceed the speed limit. Few governments in the U.S., for example, would allow a 12 year old to marry, despite that 12 year old being an individual with rights. Yes, words change meaning--to our loss, IMO. I deem it unfortunate that it's no longer possible to speak of the "gay Parisienne" without additional explanation. Think the same thing will happen with the word "married"? Will a person have to explain further what he means when he uses the word?

I'm all for protecting the rights of the minority, but I'm not certain that a minority has the right to change what the majority thinks is right.

The Bill of Rights was actually ratified to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. What the majority believes is not always what is moral and ethical. The majority at one time believed in slavery. You continually imply that it is acceptable for the government to distinguish between the rights of heterosexuals and homosexuals, but have yet to give a compelling reason for this distinction. Twelve year old's are not allowed to marry because they are not deemed mature enough either emotionally, mentally or physically. Allowing 12 year old's to marry opens the door for pedophiles to take advantage of prepubescent children in the name of "marriage." Speeding is a major contributor to death in auto accidents. There are REASONS behind these restrictions. Keeping citizens safe is a compelling reason for the government to place restrictions on personal rights. What possible compelling reason can you give me for the government to have an interest in interfering with the rights of homosexuals who are consenting adults and not interfering in any way with your rights? The federal police power gives the U.S. government the right to place restrictions when dealing with the health, welfare or safety of its citizens as a whole. Allowing gay marriage would actually promote better health as marriage tends to be a stabilizing societal factor concerning promiscuity, employment, etc. Discrimination against gays is a major reason for clinical depression among that population. Depression leads to higher levels of alcoholism, drug use, risky behavior and suicide. By denying homosexuals the same stable family environment that helps keep society functioning in a cohesive manner, the government is actually interfering with the health, welfare and safety of its citizenry.

maryskl, I really have enjoyed reading all the posts in this thread. As always, our posters are so diverse, not only with books, but also with their views. I especially love how they are able to express those thoughts so well without "losing" it. What a delight.

However, I have particularly enjoyed what you have said in yours with a somewhat different viewpoint than mine and they truly did make me stop and think (and still thinking). I like that. I'm not adverse to change; but I think you nailed it on the head when you said I prefer the thought process prior to that change, especially if it's a serious and significant one.

You express yourself well and what's more you get the other sides. I hope I can say that also for myself, because I believe I really do understand the concerns of others, in spite of my own personal feelings.

I have enjoyed the back and forth with you as well Tell. I think we have different personalities for a reason. The more liberal inclination towards change needs to be checked by the conservative brakes just so we do not have change simply for change's sake. When my kids were in elementary school, I was very involved in the PTA. When I was first asked to serve on the board of directors, there was another lady who drove me crazy at first. Her name was Deborah. Anything that was proposed met with a string of "why's" by Deborah. It took me a little while, but I finally understood that every organization needs a "Deborah." She made us justify all of our decisions. We ended up becoming very good friends and found despite our political differences, we were more alike than different. Partisan politics has had such a terrible effect on this country IMO. It is impossible to work out a meaningful future when we do not listen to each other. It is so easy to fall into the trap of seeing anyone with differing opinions as the "enemy." As a liberal living in the south, I am almost always in the minority with my opinions, but people who know ME as a person know that I am not some evil person bent on bringing down society as we know it.

Why are Americans so adamant about defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman anyway? Is there some kind of nursery rhyme you have to learn by heart in kindergarten that defines marriage as between one man and woman or what? And if suddenly two men or two women can call themselves married, everyone gets confused?

Because in all honesty, words mean something, both for legal purposes and classification purposes, otherwise, this debate would be very easy to settle - 2, or 3, or 50 people link hands and say they're married and that's that.

Quote:

Which just goes to show what an idiot he is, because Germany has freedom of religion and so worshipping the devil is already legal, though sacrificing virgins isn't.

But Scientology practice and Holocaust denial are both crimes in Germany, while they are not in the US. Which goes to show you, definitions of "reasonable" and "permissible" tend to vary.

Quote:

This is my definition as well. A union or commitment of love between two people.

Why just 2, and why people? I'm not equating homosexuality with polygamy or anything, but if we're allowing more freedom, we must understand where the freedom ends and why.

Quote:

Twelve year old's are not allowed to marry because they are not deemed mature enough either emotionally, mentally or physically. Allowing 12 year old's to marry opens the door for pedophiles to take advantage of prepubescent children in the name of "marriage."

Well, to play devil's advocate, what gives us the right to declare pedeophilia a crime? In several countries, an individual is allowed to marry once they reach the age of puberty and adolescence has been known to occur as early as 10 years of age. If we're talking about our modern sensibilities, then the knee jerk reaction for protecting children is about as non-natural and modern as it gets.

I read extensively back on gay rights back when I was in college and it was a jaw dropper to read about the tangle of sexual preferences that were clamoring to be recognized as acceptable and common back in the 50s, until the split between NAMBLA and the gay rights occurred. When Elvis first became involved with his future wife, Priscilla, she was only 14.

Please note, I'm not saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same. That's apples and oranges. However, if you pressed me to give a compelling safety and/or medical reason as to why I should deny a 15 year old the right to marry a 50 year old, I couldn't really give you one other than a moral and/or religious objection. It gave me a royal headache when I was counseling adolescents and was regularly seeing 15 year olds who insisted that they had no problem with banging their parent's friends or sex offenders, who kept telling me about how I had no right to judge their loving relationships.

Quote:

Keeping citizens safe is a compelling reason for the government to place restrictions on personal rights. What possible compelling reason can you give me for the government to have an interest in interfering with the rights of homosexuals who are consenting adults and not interfering in any way with your rights?

But we have all sorts of rights that infringe upon our personal rights that aren't safety or health related, just aimed at protecting people's sensibilities. The seat belt law, for one. Who does it hurt besides the person not wearing the seatbelt? Drug laws. Obscenity laws. Laws against being naked or having sex in public.

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about adopting the French model and every couple receiving the benefits is legally required to have a state sanctioned civil union, while in order to marry, they go to a religious institution, but the church is free to deny anyone service according to what they see fit. That would ensure that there's an equal distribution of rights for everyone, but would address 2 huge concerns on the conservative side: rewriting the definition of marriage and the fear that the government would force religious people who are against homosexuality to be penalized for acting according to their faith. Since there are Unitarian Universalist churches, atheists and agnostics can still be "married", as well as homosexuals, provided that they find a willing church.

Why are Americans so adamant about defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman anyway? Is there some kind of nursery rhyme you have to learn by heart in kindergarten that defines marriage as between one man and woman or what? And if suddenly two men or two women can call themselves married, everyone gets confused?

Because in all honesty, words mean something, both for legal purposes and classification purposes, otherwise, this debate would be very easy to settle - 2, or 3, or 50 people link hands and say they're married and that's that.

**Yes they do mean something and in this country we use the term "marriage" for a legal civil union. If all marriages performed in a church were called "marriages" and those performed in a courthouse were called civil unions, we probably would not be having this conversation. Gays who married in a UU church would be married. Those who stood in front of a judge would have a civil union.**

Quote:

This is my definition as well. A union or commitment of love between two people.

Why just 2, and why people? I'm not equating homosexuality with polygamy or anything, but if we're allowing more freedom, we must understand where the freedom ends and why.
***Right now we have a constitutional decision that states that marriage between more than two people is detrimental to the "health" of that relationship. Whether we agree with that decision or not, the fact remains that a rational was given for infringing upon the religious rights of Mormons.****

Quote:

Twelve year old's are not allowed to marry because they are not deemed mature enough either emotionally, mentally or physically. Allowing 12 year old's to marry opens the door for pedophiles to take advantage of prepubescent children in the name of "marriage."

Well, to play devil's advocate, what gives us the right to declare pedeophilia a crime? In several countries, an individual is allowed to marry once they reach the age of puberty and adolescence has been known to occur as early as 10 years of age. If we're talking about our modern sensibilities, then the knee jerk reaction for protecting children is about as non-natural and modern as it gets.

I read extensively back on gay rights back when I was in college and it was a jaw dropper to read about the tangle of sexual preferences that were clamoring to be recognized as acceptable and common back in the 50s, until the split between NAMBLA and the gay rights occurred. When Elvis first became involved with his future wife, Priscilla, she was only 14.

Please note, I'm not saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same. That's apples and oranges. However, if you pressed me to give a compelling safety and/or medical reason as to why I should deny a 15 year old the right to marry a 50 year old, I couldn't really give you one other than a moral and/or religious objection. It gave me a royal headache when I was counseling adolescents and was regularly seeing 15 year olds who insisted that they had no problem with banging their parent's friends or sex offenders, who kept telling me about how I had no right to judge their loving relationships.

****The law declares that those under the age of majority (unless a court has declared them an emancipated minor) are incapable of consent. Therefore any relationship between a minor and an adult lacks consent on the part of the minor. Pedophilia is always non-consensual legally. A homosexual marriage would be a consensual relationship between two adults. I am sorry, but comparing homosexuals to pedophiles for any reason is using language meant to incite. The vast majority of pedophiles (if they are able to have any adult relationships) are heterosexual.

Quote:

Keeping citizens safe is a compelling reason for the government to place restrictions on personal rights. What possible compelling reason can you give me for the government to have an interest in interfering with the rights of homosexuals who are consenting adults and not interfering in any way with your rights?

But we have all sorts of rights that infringe upon our personal rights that aren't safety or health related, just aimed at protecting people's sensibilities. The seat belt law, for one. Who does it hurt besides the person not wearing the seatbelt? Drug laws. Obscenity laws. Laws against being naked or having sex in public.
***Tell the parent whose child died in a car accident that not wearing a seat belt did not harm them. Drug impair reason. Obscenity is defined by the community and I think that community has gotten pretty lax. There are nude beaches and if someone wants to have sex in public, just warn me ahead of time so I am not there.***

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about adopting the French model and every couple receiving the benefits is legally required to have a state sanctioned civil union, while in order to marry, they go to a religious institution, but the church is free to deny anyone service according to what they see fit. That would ensure that there's an equal distribution of rights for everyone, but would address 2 huge concerns on the conservative side: rewriting the definition of marriage and the fear that the government would force religious people who are against homosexuality to be penalized for acting according to their faith. Since there are Unitarian Universalist churches, atheists and agnostics can still be "married", as well as homosexuals, provided that they find a willing church.

****I think that I addressed that early on. Churches are free now to marry who they wish. If one does not abide by their beliefs or creed, they are within their rights not to perform a ceremony. A law aimed at legalizing gay marriage would have absolutely no impact on religious practices. A marriage license from the government is required to make a marriage "legal." Without that license, a marriage in a church is nothing more than an affirmation. A church is not required for a marriage to occur. The government is not going to force a preacher, priest or rabbi to marry someone. That would infringe upon the rights of people to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Now a judge or justice of the peace would have to make a personal decision if they were morally opposed to gay marriages. Either perform no marriages at all or perform ceremonies for all who are legally allowed to wed.[/b][/quote]

Right now we have a constitutional decision that states that marriage between more than two people is detrimental to the "health" of that relationship. Whether we agree with that decision or not, the fact remains that a rational was given for infringing upon the religious rights of Mormons

There are reasons given for not calling civil unions "marriage" as well, even if you don't agree with them. Why is it fine to violate the rights of Mormons to define marriage, but not homosexuals? The legal rationale given for striking down Proposition 8 was that it infringed upon equal rights amendments and forbidding Mormons or Muslims or Hindus to practice polygamy is barring their practice of religion. This is particularly striking as polygamy is allowed religiously, but the government does not recognize the additional spouses. Sound familiar.

Quote:

The law declares that those under the age of majority (unless a court has declared them an emancipated minor) are incapable of consent.

Exactly. The law. Laws may be changed, but judging from the strength of your reaction, there's a certain knee jerk reaction against that type of thing. If you want to see my language as inciting, that's your prerogative, but I already said that it's apples and oranges and furthermore, it simply proves my point: beyond a certain point, we cannot defend our reactions logically, simply morally or by majority opinion i.e "The law says ___".

Quote:

Tell the parent whose child died in a car accident that not wearing a seat belt did not harm them.

That would follow if the law only penalized parents who don't put a seat belt on their child, but it doesn't. It applies to all adults who don't put on their seat belts, therefore, it's tells people what to do with their own bodies.

Quote:

A church is not required for a marriage to occur. The government is not going to force a preacher, priest or rabbi to marry someone.

That would be nice in practice, but as we saw in Reynolds vs the US or the recent FLDS bust, if the federal law establishing a law infringes upon a religious institution, the federal law wins. There's more than 1 way to "force" someone to do things and by fining them, taking away their tax exempt status, or stripping of their position is as much force as throwing them in jail. Here's a link to the list of lawsuits filed by gay couples against people who refused on a religious basis.

Right now we have a constitutional decision that states that marriage between more than two people is detrimental to the "health" of that relationship. Whether we agree with that decision or not, the fact remains that a rational was given for infringing upon the religious rights of Mormons

There are reasons given for not calling civil unions "marriage" as well, even if you don't agree with them. Why is it fine to violate the rights of Mormons to define marriage, but not homosexuals? The legal rationale given for striking down Proposition 8 was that it infringed upon equal rights amendments and forbidding Mormons or Muslims or Hindus to practice polygamy is barring their practice of religion. This is particularly striking as polygamy is allowed religiously, but the government does not recognize the additional spouses. Sound familiar.
What are the reasons for not calling civil unions "marriage?" I have YET to hear one. The Mormon practice of polygamy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because only males are allowed to have more than one spouse. If you feel so strongly that polygamy should be allowed, then become an advocate for it.

Quote:

The law declares that those under the age of majority (unless a court has declared them an emancipated minor) are incapable of consent.

Exactly. The law. Laws may be changed, but judging from the strength of your reaction, there's a certain knee jerk reaction against that type of thing. If you want to see my language as inciting, that's your prerogative, but I already said that it's apples and oranges and furthermore, it simply proves my point: beyond a certain point, we cannot defend our reactions logically, simply morally or by majority opinion i.e "The law says ___".

Oh come now Sterling. You KNOW that using pedophilia as a comparison plays to people's deepest fears and prejudices. It is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise. You are correct...laws do change. However, as a progressive nation we try to enact laws that protect the powerless from those who would abuse them. Do you truly foresee us lowering the age of consent to 10 years old? I am not having a knee-jerk reaction. I am calling you on a sly insinuation that is designed to influence people on a subliminal level.

Quote:

Tell the parent whose child died in a car accident that not wearing a seat belt did not harm them.

That would follow if the law only penalized parents who don't put a seat belt on their child, but it doesn't. It applies to all adults who don't put on their seat belts, therefore, it's tells people what to do with their own bodies.
Driving a car is not a right. It is a privilege. In order to gain that privilege, you must abide by the regulations set out by the licensing authority.

Quote:

A church is not required for a marriage to occur. The government is not going to force a preacher, priest or rabbi to marry someone.

That would be nice in practice, but as we saw in Reynolds vs the US or the recent FLDS bust, if the federal law establishing a law infringes upon a religious institution, the federal law wins. I tried to read several conservative arguments against gay marriage when the debate first launched and one of the hottest topics was whether or not churches would be forced to perform gay marriages, complete with links to lawsuits against clergy members.

You do realize that the Reynolds v US case was adjudicated in the 1890's. We might get a different outcome if a case were brought today. I am not making a judgment either way, but the Reynold's case is hardly a recent trend. As far as the Photographer case, it has not been heard yet. Only filed. We do not yet know the outcome. However, the case of a person engaged in business is quite different from a religious leader. The primary business of a person of the cloth is to minister to his/her congregation. Their primary purpose is religious. Would you agree that if someone's religious convictions forbade them from selling shoes to black people that civil rights laws should kick in? The Interstate Commerce Clause was the vehicle used to end discriminatory business practices in the south.

Just think about the crazy preacher who shows up and demonstrates at gay funerals. I do not even know how many lawsuits have been filed against him by grieving families, yet his constitutional right of free speech and assembly has consistently been upheld. If a guarantee were written into a federal law that church leaders would not be compelled to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples, would that ease your mind?

What are the reasons for not calling civil unions "marriage?" I have YET to hear one. [/b]

Tee has offered you one and so has dick and so have I. Marriage as it is defined right now is for men marrying women, and if civil union grants the same rights and privileges, what's the deal?

Quote:

Oh come now Sterling. You KNOW that using pedophilia as a comparison plays to people's deepest fears and prejudices. It is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise. You are correct...laws do change. However, as a progressive nation we try to enact laws that protect the powerless from those who would abuse them. Do you truly foresee us lowering the age of consent to 10 years old? I am not having a knee-jerk reaction. I am calling you on a sly insinuation that is designed to influence people on a subliminal level.

Look, this debate can get heated enough without flinging ad hominem insults and rude aspirations. Trying to tell someone that you know what they think better than they do is always the beginning of a conversation going downhill. I thought being progressive meant being open-minded, accepting of differences and new views and willing to consider other views. You could have just politely told me that the comparison is too loaded for objective argument, please switch it to something else. I would have done it. Fine, I'll compare it to brother-sister marriages. Consenting adults, no allegation of abuse, no one hurt except possibly children of the union and risk of genetic defects doesn't apply since deaf and blind people are allowed to marry.

Quote:

Driving a car is not a right. It is a privilege. In order to gain that privilege, you must abide by the regulations set out by the licensing authority.

Marriage is a right, but driving a car which you purchased with your own money and driving on your own time is a privilege? There's no law when you apply for a driver's license that says: "I agree to always wear a seat belt".

Quote:

You do realize that the Reynolds v US case was adjudicated in the 1890's. We might get a different outcome if a case were brought today.

Yes, I know.

Quote:

As far as the Photographer case, it has not been heard yet. Only filed. We do not yet know the outcome.

Would you agree that if someone's religious convictions forbade them from selling shoes to black people that civil rights laws should kick in?

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't. I support the Muslim woman who sued a clothing store after she was fired for wearing her hijab on the job. I support Navajo tribes for forbidding non-Native Americans to participate in tribal activities.

Quote:

If a guarantee were written into a federal law that church leaders would not be compelled to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples, would that ease your mind?

That would depend on whether or not they write in a clause saying that financial enforcements such as higher taxes, revoking tax exempt statuses, etc.

I'll compare it to brother-sister marriages. Consenting adults, no allegation of abuse, no one hurt except possibly children of the union and risk of genetic defects doesn't apply since deaf and blind people are allowed to marry.

An interesting thought. It's the mentality that if it's okay for one group, why not this group, which could go on forever, citing one group after another. But it's another ingredient in the pot to ponder.

Regardless, no matter what is being said here or by whom, I believe the one thing that divides in this issue (now), is that marriage is defined by a large portion of the population as being between a man and a woman. We can talk around that and thru it and tack on additional issues, but there it is. So, without denying rights and privileges to a small segment of the population (and the gay community is a small percentage), it's suggested that a different word be used other than marriage. I personally don't see that as a problem.

Keep in mind that this is a starting point. Anyone familiar with the online dictionary knows how words are conveniently being accepted there by acclimation. A word becomes "legal" just because it's used commonly. Do I agree with that? Yes and no. We're losing a lot of our pure language, but it is what it is. Ah, I digress. Just wanted to make the point that on down the line, "marriage" may come to mean exactly what is being asked for. But all this push/push/push is just making the other side defend/defend/defend. Working quietly behind the lines can be just as effective as the ground assault. The troops have done their job clearing the land and making progress; now it may be time for another kind of work.